The always excellent Gloria.TV has another clue (if the embedding does not work, click the link) as to the astonishing events in Paraguay. A bishop accused another bishop of being homosexual.
Look: when there is such a scandal as a homosexual bishop I would not condone, but expect other bishops to condemn loudly the filth within the Church.
Not in the age of mercy, of course. in the age of mercy, a priest has to smell of filth. It makes him nearer to his (filthiest) sheep.
This one of the homosexual bishop can certainly have been used as an excuse. The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) will make a scandalous faggot to the head of his papal household, but he will never tolerate an orthodox, Catholic bishop to criticise another homo.
This man is, very probably, beyond repair. We can only hope God rids us of him soon.
Bishop Livieres Plano is a Catholic bishop.
Several articles have appeared in the last days about the persecution of Bishop Livieres.
The Bishop has,thankfully, reacted. His website has published a rebuttal of the accusation in various languages, so complete and extensive it is not suited for a blog post.
Bishop Livieres has also made very clear the accusations moved against him are purely ideological. And it is difficult not to agree with him, considering that it is now clear that no personal misconduct is involved. Methinks, after the experiences with Father Manelli some of Francis' executioners has thought better to choose a different path this time. The problem with that is that the character assassination becomes far more difficult.
What is, then, Bishop Livieres accused of?
He is accused of being Catholic.
In Francis' Stalinian world, if you uphold Catholic values you are a threat to the unity of circus Bergoglio. If your seminary has more Seminarians than the rest of Paraguay together, you are clearly sowing discord. If your very behaviour and success shows that your colleagues are a bunch of incompetent morons without faith or dignity you are certainly showing you can't get along with them.
Bishop Livieres does not fit within the nuChurch of Mercy. He is Catholic, which is an accusation that it not easy to move to Francis.
Bishop Livieres, an Argentinian like TMAHICH, will therefore have to leave the head of his diocese. He reminds me strongly of Athanasius, in the same way as Francis would let Liberius look like an amateur in comparison to him.
Angelqueen has a petition in favour of the good Bishop: web search them “vote to support the good bishop Livieres” and you will find.
The petition will not save his post, of course. But it will do something for the salvation of those who subscribe.
As to Francis, the Bishop said it very well: he will have to answer to heaven for his decision.
I am pretty sure TMAHICH thinks he will never have to answer to anyone.
But he will. Oh, but he will.
Thousands of brave Chinese are, as I write this, standing up against the Chinese Communist Party rule in China; a rule which, if edulcorated over there compared to the praxis of the mainland, is still too much of an oppression, and so bad that very many put their future, perhaps their lives, at risk to change the way things work.
I see them as the media outlets let the images of their courage go around the world.
And I wonder how many Cardinals are having the courage to take a stance that would require a small part of that nerve; a courage which would not put them at loss of losing life or limb, or liberty; though the loss of power and privileges would be very probable, at least for the time being.
We can make some parallels between the two situations, because every sound Cardinal must, if he looks at the man in the mirror, know that Francis is doing more damage to the Church that any Communist dictatorship ever could. It is a foolish idea to eradicate Catholicism through political oppression. It is far more damaging – though in the end equally foolish – to try to let Her wither from the inside.
I hope many sound Cardinals will look at the images in the next days, and draw the same parallels.
A rather stupid, but very cunning, Che Guevara is running the Church.
It's time for the Cardinals to stage their own Hong Kong reaction.
Bishop Conry has given an interview to a semi-porn rag for gossiping housewives called “Daily Mail”. Visit the site at your peril.
The interview allows us to give a long, hard look at your typical “spirit of V II” priest.
Caution: strong smell of brimstone.
First, the photo; reproduced above, and obviously published with his and his mistress consent, or acceptance: a priest and his mistress walk about. He is in plain clothes, though he is obviously still a priest; she wears a cross and what the wife of an Anglican bishop would consider a not entirely appropriate skirt; but hey, this is one who sleeps with bishops, so appropriateness isn’t really a concern.
They are, apparently, carrying groceries. You couldn’t make this up.
Then, the text (I do not have the stomach to watch at the video):
“It has been difficult keeping the secret,’ he told the Mail. ‘In some respects I feel very calm. It is liberating. It is a relief. I have been very careful not to make sexual morality a priority [in his sermons]. I don’t think it got in the way of my job, I don’t think people would say I have been a bad bishop. But I can’t defend myself. I did wrong. Full stop.’ “
“Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause).”
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
From the Blog The Divine Life, an interesting post about that tragic word, “late-term abortion”.
Besides being very instructive about the scale of ruthlessness the “liberated” Western society has brought on us, it makes clear the intrinsic hypocrisy of the entire so-called “pro-choice” edifice.
An abortion is either a murder, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, there should be no reason whatsoever why those who don’t consider abortion killing shouldn’t practice it any time before birth or – come to that and with the same thinking – actually during birth too. If it is, then it shouldn’t be practiced and it should be banned altogether, period.
This idea that an abortion would be morally acceptable for, say, 20 weeks but would then become morally questionable starting from day X is a logical and ethical absurdity. Also hypocritical is the behaviour of those institutions which practice abortions only in certain…
View original 123 more words
Vintage Mundabor Reblog
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Absolutely beautiful contribution from Tim Drake for the National Catholic Register.
The points of interest and comparisons are too many to mention here. The sources are numerous, authoritative and – most importantly – intelligent. The parallel between the priesthood and the army is not only very reasonable, but it is beautiful in its own right.
Mr. Drake is very alarmed for the future of the US Army. He rightly points out to the fact that whilst the Church is indefectible, the US Army isn’t. He is spot on.
In my eyes, a very notable point is that the astonishing technological superiority of the West and the absence of wars from our own soil for such a long time have created such a complacency that the army has become just another field for liberal and pervert propaganda instead of being seen as an instrument meant to guarantee one’s own (and…
View original 218 more words
The spectacular fall of Bishop Conry is occasion to repeat what I have already stated in the past: when a bishop is of clearly liberal tendencies, he probably has a skeleton in his closet.
Orthodox priests do what they had decided to do when they decided to become priests. Their life and ideology is aligned with their hopes and aspirations. They know and always knew (everyone does and always did, even the liberals) what is required of them, and what Christianity teaches. They know and always knew that their job consists in the salvation of souls (I mean: in doing their best for it), not in their self-promotion.
When I read about a liberal priest or bishop, I never think he could be in good faith. You can’t go against 2,000 years of Christianity and be in good faith. When I read of people like that, I know that one of the two is at work.
1. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) such and such has lost the faith. He does not believe there is any God, any judgment, any hell or heaven. At that point, he tries to solve the horrible conflict inside his head (along the line of: “what on earth am I doing wearing this habit?”) by becoming a social worker spreading a secular wannabe gospel that is the perfect enemy of the real one. Not infrequently, these people will not even wear the habit, in an attempt to reduce the cognitive dissonance of being, in the eyes of the world, men of a God in whose existence they do not even believe. Enter Jesus the illegal immigrant, Jesus the unjust (because only merciful), Jesus the environmentalist, and all the other Jesuses they invent to look, and feel, good.
2. Father (or Bishop, or Cardinal) has a skeleton in the closet. He is homosexual, or pedophile; or he has a mistress. Or he drinks, or gambles, or whores around. Again, an internal conflict takes place. The need to be seen as good arises as the awareness of not being the priest he is supposed to be also grows. Slowly, the zeal for the priesthood (provided it was there in the first place) fades in the background, because every thought of zeal reminds him of his betrayal of his vows. At this point, some kind of substitute goodness will have to take the place of the goodness he knows he does not have. Popularity, approval, the trust of the sheep will give him security and, he hopes, perhaps some kind of protection. But certainly, there is the internal absolution. “I may not be the best priest or bishop, but look how I fight for social justice!”, or the like. At this point, the mistress or the whiskey, the gambling or the call boys, become a secondary fault, a kind of venial sin compared to the Great Work Of (put here his favourite cause). When Christ gets smaller and smaller in the background, earthly issues become bigger and bigger as necessary compensation.
Before you can say “mistress” (or “faggot”, or whatever it is), the fact that adulterers are not allowed to receive communion becomes a problem, and our man will be in the first line to try to solve it.
He will also find it convenient to be “alternative”. Bishop Conry’s photo in sweater shows us that very probably he went around in civilian clothes in his daily life; which, in turn, made him much less conspicuous, and therefore made it much easier for him to visit his mistress. Try to move around constantly dressed as a priest, and you’ll notice that… people notice you.
Conry is not the first, but only the last one a long series of progressive bishops found with… the reasons why they were so dismissive of orthodoxy.
Almost everyone needs to feel good, or at least in harmony with the system of values he has given to himself. When he betrays his vows or loses the faith (which is the same), the values must be readjusted, and a new equilibrium must be found. The stronger the failing, the stronger the push.
It does not work only for priests. Have you noticed how many people become apostles of this or that to compensate for the fact that they are whores, or faggots? Lady Gaga? Elton John? Leonard Bernstein? Madonna (the singer)? Have you ever known a blogger who defends dissenting ideas but has no personal reasons (himself, or among his relatives or friends) to do so? No. When they complain of “exclusion”, it always is “our” exclusion; or the exclusion of their son; or “some of my best friends are gay”.
Whenever you see a priest, or a bishop, or a journalist, or a simple blogger with strange ideas, look for the skeleton.
First, let me say it very straight: the departure of Bishop Conry is very good news. As long as I have followed the things of Catholic England (seven years at least), Bishop Conry has always been one of the worst enemies of sound Catholicism, and a promoter (at least by willful blindness; I’d rather say by willful malicious intent) of the destruction of sound liturgy, and sound Catholicism, in his diocese.
It is, therefore, not without a certain rise in my adrenaline level that I now read around comments of people who say things like “he was always so nice” or “he always celebrated a reverent Mass”. Heavens, there is no damn liberal these days that is not frightfully “nice”, and I begin to think the first good sign in a bishop is that he isn’t. It also does not help much to celebrate a reverent mass oneself, if one’s priests celebrate masses with launch of M&Ms among the pewsitters, and the like. As to the bishop being “the one who has given us back Friday abstinence”, I could make the pun that we have seen how much he believed in abstinence himself, but more to the point I would bet my pint if there was one diocese in the Land where Friday Abstinence was either ignored or considered a yoga practice, it was his. Anyone who does not consider Conry one of the many poisonous fruits of nuChurch has his Catholicism in need of urgent repair, period.
This link is just an example after three seconds of web search: a bishop dressed in sweater tells us to put up with noisy children at Mass, and feels so trendy he can’t believe how cool he is.
No reverence, no clerical habit, no sense of sacred; in short, no Catholicism. Is it such a big surprise that he was unable to take his Job seriously in other – admittedly, difficult – areas?
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. Bishop Conry is just the latest demonstration of this great truth. He trashed the Liturgy, and the Devil gave a good thrashing to him. We can hope he recovers. But more on this below.
As to the “we are all sinners” meme, I would also like to invite my readers to not allow this evident truism to blind them to the great scandal given by a bishop who is discovered – I know no one of my readers is so stupid to believe the man was not cornered; not even one – to have failed his vows in the most obvious of ways; not as a disgraceful but isolated slip, but actually as a way of life. I wonder how many seriously, devout priests who wanted to celebrate the TLM he has discouraged, threatened, or not allowed in his diocese? There is more to say on this, but it will be for another post.
I am now awaiting the details about this story; after which I will allow myself to pose questions like: who knew and did nothing? Who accompanied the rise of this priest knowing of the breasted skeleton in the closet? The question will be allowed, will it not? Or are we “not to judge”?
As last observation, please consider the press release of (still) Bishop Conry: it contains the phrase
As a result, however, I have decided to offer my resignation as bishop with immediate effect and will now take some time to consider my future.
Boy. I’d have expected he says “I am going to lock myself in a monastery for the next six months, hoping to remember why I became a Priest”.
Nope. The subtext of this seems clear to me. “Family” first, Christ and obligations of the habit nowhere!
Again, I wait to know more of this. Perhaps he has three children with the woman, and is afraid about their future. But boy, “I will now take some time to consider my future” does smell of reckless entitlement. “Sorry boys. Wasn’t to be. Weighing my options now. Peace and love. Kieran”.
There is also no word of repentance, no hint of the end of this relationship. There are “apologies”, which in England are more common than “good morning”, and do not even imply an admission of guilt. The narrative here is the usual Anglo-Saxon one: I apologise if you are upset and scandalised; but hey, I think I might scandalise you even more and throw away the habit altogether. At which point I will apologise again for the “shame I brought on the Church”; and do, again, what I damn well please.
I will, of course, pray for Bishop Conry. I will do so enthusiastically, because I am a Christian, and in his grand fall I see the danger and the littler falls of us; the little people who, say, never became priests because they took the vow of celibacy seriously; and are astonished at people who become priests or bishops with a mistress on the side, and then inform us they are “considering their future”.
Still: there can be no doubt that the announcement of his departure is really, really good news, because this is another damn liberal going away from where he does a lot of damage.
Of course, Francis could appoint someone even worse at his successor; but it would be his own fault and responsibility. For us, today is a new chance, and another bad bishop becoming a cautionary tale. Forcing a bit the situation (not the logic), when Stalin dies you are happy that the damn Commie bastard is gone, not afraid that someone even worse than him might come to power.
Pray for bishop Conry.
And for a better successor.
These qualities of Father Dickson impress me every time I read one of his posts:
1. His straightforward courage.
2. His clarity of thought.
3. The concise, forceful expressiveness of his writing.
Father Dickson has just given us another example of this. I quote from his last blog post. My emphases in red.
With so many bishops and priests currently watering down the Church’s teaching on these by favouring Communion for the Divorced and civilly ‘remarried’, as well by supporting homosexual civil ‘unions’ under the guise of protecting civil rights, the Synod is in great danger of denying the Gospel and Christ.
Though it is becoming increasingly difficult, I am always encouraging people to hope and trust that Francis will not allow the Synod to deviate from the established doctrine that marriage is a permanent union between one man and one woman, exclusive of all others, open to the procreation of life.
If the Synod recommends allowing Communion to the remarried Divorcee, cohabiting couples, and/or supports civil ‘unions’ for homosexuals even in order to protect their civil rights, then Pope Paul VI’s ‘smoke of Satan’ will have surely entered the Church, because the bottom line is this: if Francis and/or the Synod declare a change to Church teaching on marriage and sexuality they do not actually change the Faith, they actually abandon the faith.
It is useless to say the Pope is our Supreme Teacher and that we must give submission of will and intellect to his teaching, because that holds only when he holds himself bound by revelation and defined dogma, of which he is but the custodian, not the originator.
I cannot bring myself to believe that Francis will allow an attempt to change doctrine happen because it would take the arrogance of hell to proclaim that the faithful and the Popes have been wrong for over two millennia, and I am unwilling to ascribe such arrogance to any man.
Can we really ascribe it to Francis and our Bishops? And if not, can we ascribe to them simple stupidity, or a faithlessness that has seen them fall into relativism? I hope not.
If the Synod and Francis do attempt to impose a new teaching which contravenes defined teaching, we are at rights to decry that new teaching for as long as it takes to have it declared erroneous -and not only the right, but the duty.
If you click the link, you will notice that I have ended up quoting a large part of the blog post; and the part in red is also a lot. Which says something about the writing style of this man of God.
Make no mistake: he will be persecuted one day. Make no mistake: he knows it very well, but this does not stop him.
Thank God for Father Gary Dickson, and the tiny minority of priests with his love for the Catholic faith. Let us pray for them every day, and that their number be increased in these terrible times of ours.
In people like this brave priest I, a wretched sinner unworthy of the crumbs of the Lord’s feast, see all the beauty and glory of the true Church.
The Church that will never die. The Church that has already triumphed. The Church that does not flirt with the devil.
There is a place where Christians are addressed in the way you read below.
Physical violence not excluded. In one’s own home.
By Muslims, of course. Who else…
“Do you think I’m looking at you, you fucking ugly whore. Try to see what clothes you wear, bitch,”
“Well, you have a cross on — then you are also a Christian fucking whore. Do you know what we do to people like you? Do you know what we do to people like you? You get stoned,”
“My son is being called everything. I get called all sorts of things. Infidel. Filthy Christians. They tell me I ought to be stoned to death,”
“He called me a dirty Christian whore and an infidel. Then he pushed me into the apartment. He shook me and slapped my face.”
Fear for one’s own security, and moving out of the neighbourhood, follow.
Where will this be?
It’s modern Denmark.
From one of the latest ramblings of the humble Bishop of Rome:
This is the man who made of his entire pontificate a show of his own alleged goodness, mercy, and revolutionary intent. A peacock if even there was one.
This is the man who makes no mystery of wanting to remake the papacy in his own image. Albeit he is very right in this: that his extreme boastfulness brought him extremely far from the Truth.
Christians are called to “be authentic with the truth of reality and of the Gospel,”
… says the man who is the very embodiment of falsification of the Gospel, and perversion of the Truth.
Can you believe this guy? Who is this: Francis The Self-Effacing Pontiff?
“The vain say, ‘Hey, look, I’m giving this check for the church’s work,’ and they show off the check; then they scam the church from behind,” he said.
The vain says: “Look: I am hopping on the bus and use a Ford Focus”, and they show off the bus ticket and the car. They they scam the Church from behind.
& Co. & Co. & Co… Follow the link to read a new high in papal hypocrisy.
By the by, this is another prime example of Francis’ use of the homily generator.
What a clown.